Section 138 NI Act | Trial Court Can Direct Complainant To Furnish Relied-Upon Documents To Accused For Fair Trial & Procedural Parity: Rajasthan High Court

"The question whether there is an automatic statutory entitlement and the question whether the Court may, in the facts of a particular case, direct disclosure in the interest of a fair trial are distinct questions." Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a trial court possesses the procedural jurisdiction in a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to direct the complainant to supply copies of all relied-upon documents to the accused.

Bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal observed that while statutory provisions such as Section 207 CrPC strictly govern police reports, the absence of an express mandate in private complaints does not preclude the court from ordering disclosure to ensure procedural parity, noting that "the accused cannot reasonably be expected to effectively rebut such evidence without knowing precisely what documents the complainant proposes to rely upon."

The petitioner-complainant instituted a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan, wherein cognizance was taken and the accused were summoned. Following their appearance, the complainant tendered his evidence-in-chief on affidavit along with certain original and photocopied documents without supplying copies of those documents to the accused. The accused subsequently filed an application seeking copies of all such relied-upon documents, which the trial court allowed on April 27, 2026, prompting the petitioner to invoke Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before the High Court.

The sole legal question before the High Court was whether a Magistrate trying a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has the procedural jurisdiction to direct the complainant to supply copies of relied-upon documents to the accused, despite the absence of an express statutory provision akin to Section 207 CrPC.

Court Distinguishes Statutory Entitlement From Procedural Discretion For Fair Trial

Justice Beniwal observed that the trial court's order was not premised on an incorrect assumption that Section 207 CrPC directly governs private complaint proceedings. Rather, the direction was issued after taking cognizance of the factual scenario wherein the accused were furnished only with the complaint, while the complainant sought to establish guilt on the basis of an evidence affidavit and accompanying documents kept away from the defence.

The bench emphasized that natural justice requires an accused facing a criminal proceeding under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 to be made aware of the incriminatory material marshalled against them. The absence of an explicit provision in the procedural code cannot be stretched to deprive the accused of access to records relied upon by the prosecution to secure a conviction.

"The question whether there is an automatic statutory entitlement and the question whether the Court may, in the facts of a particular case, direct disclosure in the interest of a fair trial are distinct questions."

Procedural Rules Cannot Be Exploited To Defeat Substantive Rights

Addressing the petitioner's argument that Section 204(3) CrPC only mandates furnishing a copy of the complaint with the summons, the High Court underscored that procedural law is designed to advance justice rather than thwart substantive rights on mere technicalities. The Court invoked the landmark Supreme Court decision in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1956 SC 116), reiterating that procedural irregularities do not vitiate judicial proceedings unless they cause manifest prejudice to the parties.

The Court pointed out that marking exhibits in an affidavit does not automatically constitute proof or formal exhibition on record, as assigning exhibits remains the exclusive prerogative of the court. Since several documents brought on record were mere photocopies, fairness demanded that the accused receive legible copies to formulate their cross-examination and defence.

"A decision holding that a particular statutory provision does not mandate supply of documents in a complaint case cannot be expanded into a proposition that the Court can never direct such supply in exercise of its procedural jurisdiction, particularly where the documents are relied upon by the complainant and are already part of the Court record."

Precedents Limiting Statutory Duty Do Not Bar Discretionary Disclosure

The High Court considered the petitioner’s reliance on the Madras High Court judgment in Ramesh v. A. Ramanujam (1998 Cri.L.J. 1959) and the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling in Municipal Committee v. Shri Labhu Ram & Ors. (1970 Cri.L.J. 553). Distinguishing both authorities, Justice Beniwal held that a decision delineating the limited scope of Section 204(3) CrPC at the stage of process issuance cannot be misconstrued as an absolute embargo on the court's jurisdiction to direct document disclosure at the stage of evidence.

The court noted that the ratio of any precedent must be understood strictly in light of the precise statutory question answered therein. Where documents have entered the judicial record and form the basis of the complainant's examination-in-chief, judicial discretion to furnish those documents to the accused remains unimpaired.

"The direction to furnish copies therefore does not confer any substantive advantage upon the accused and it merely ensures procedural parity and enables them to meet the case set up against them."

Disclosure Ensures Fair Trial And Procedural Parity Under NI Act

Justice Beniwal reasoned that compelling the complainant to supply copies of the documents upon which the prosecution rests does not prejudice the complainant or confer an unfair advantage upon the accused. Cheque dishonour trials carry penal consequences, and withholding relied-upon material violates the foundational tenets of an adversarial trial.

The Court observed that procedural parity is indispensable to ensure that an accused can effectively cross-examine the complainant and rebut the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the trial court committed no jurisdictional error or illegality in ordering the supply of documents.

High Court Rejects Section 528 BNSS Petition

Finding no infirmity in the approach of the Special Judicial Magistrate, the High Court held that the order subserved the ends of justice and prevented trial ambush. Finding no abuse of process, the bench refused to interfere with the directive and dismissed the petition.

The ruling establishes that while Section 207 CrPC may not apply verbatim to private complaints, Magistrate courts enjoy the procedural authority to order the supply of relied-upon documents to the accused to ensure a fair trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Date of Decision: 12 October 2026